In re M.I.
2016 IL 120232
| Ill. | 2017Background
- DCFS removed M.I. from parents and initiated proceedings; the juvenile court ordered services and visitation obligations for father J.B.
- J.B. has significant intellectual limitations (IQ ~58), bipolar disorder, history of homelessness, illiteracy, and prior incarcerations; a psychological evaluation found he could not parent independently and recommended modified services.
- J.B. missed drug testing, refused to stop marijuana use, failed to provide a stable address, attended some court hearings and sporadic visits, and declined or failed to follow through on services.
- The State petitioned to terminate J.B.’s parental rights under Adoption Act §1(D)(b) (failure to maintain reasonable interest/concern/responsibility) and §1(D)(m) (failure to make reasonable progress during a specified 9‑month period).
- The juvenile court found J.B. unfit under (b) and (m) and terminated his parental rights; the appellate court reversed (majority) holding the court failed to account adequately for J.B.’s intellectual disability; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held subsection (b) contains no willfulness requirement, affirmed the juvenile court’s finding under (b) (declining to address (m)), and held the State is not limited to alleging subsection (p) for intellectually disabled parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (J.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subsections (b) and (m) require willfulness | No willfulness element; plain language requires no state‑of‑mind; failure suffices | Appellate majority: must consider whether failures were beyond intellectual capacity (implying a willfulness requirement) | (b) contains no willfulness requirement; plain text covers inadequate attempts regardless of fault; juvenile court properly considered circumstances and (b) affirmed |
| Whether juvenile court erred by considering evidence outside the 9‑month period for (m) | Court not required to state expressly it excluded outside evidence when ruling on (m) | Appellate majority: court relied on evidence outside the statutorily specified 9‑month period | Court declined to decide because (b) alone was sufficient; did not resolve this issue |
| Whether juvenile court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence of sporadic visits, failure to drug test, refusal to stop drugs, and failure to provide address supported unfitness under (b) | J.B.: court failed to meaningfully account for disability, poverty, lack of service plan, and practical barriers to visitation | Juvenile court’s (b) finding was not against the manifest weight; it considered J.B.’s circumstances and reasonably concluded failures signaled lack of interest/responsibility |
| Whether the State is limited to alleging (p) when parent is intellectually disabled | State may plead any statutory ground supported by evidence; (p) is not exclusive | J.B.: intellectual disability suggests (p) is the appropriate / sole ground | State is not limited to (p); it may pursue any ground in §1(D) supported by proof |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.B., 231 Ill. 2d 459 (Illinois 2008) (statutory scheme and parental rights framework)
- In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329 (Illinois 2010) (two‑step process: unfitness then best interests)
- In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255 (Illinois 1990) (assess parent conduct in context of circumstances when evaluating §1(D)(b))
- In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198 (Illinois 2002) (statutory interpretation review de novo)
- In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340 (Illinois 2005) (single proven ground of unfitness suffices to terminate rights)
- In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181 (Illinois 2001) (relationship between service plans and §1(D)(m))
- In re Brown, 86 Ill. 2d 147 (Illinois 1981) (deference to trial court on fitness findings)
- In re E.O., 311 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. 2000) (parent need not be at fault to be unfit; circumstances considered but do not automatically excuse failure)